Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Highlights Monday October 4th

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    Student: Master, I don t have anything at all. Master: Good, now throw it away. Student: But if I don t have anything, how can I throw it away?
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 1999
      Student: "Master, I don't have anything at all."
      Master: "Good, now throw it away."
      Student: "But if I don't have anything, how can I throw it away?"
      Master: "Well, then keep it!"

      Koan posted by Greg.

      Judi lets loose:

      And while we are on this subject here, I would like to say something
      about this "neti-neti" horsepukky and that whole insane idiotic
      teaching. To say that we are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we
      are not our emotions, we are not this, we are not that, we are not, we
      are not, we are not!! BULLSHIT!!! What are you trying to do, reduce
      yourself to god knows what....so it won't hurt anymore?? When I was out
      at Todd and Sharon's yesterday we were talking about this very point and
      some people we know that have painted themselves into this "neti-neti"
      corner and how hard it is, not to mention how obnoxious these people
      are, to be able to deal with these people at all. As far as I'm
      concerned they might as well just pack it in right now, because they're
      as good as dead anyway. They have no vitality, no appreciation for life,
      no humor, no love, no nothing, because they are "neti-neti" - dead! And
      they think they are sooo smart! Excuse me while I puke, oh, geez, excuse
      me, it looks like I puked all over your shoes....sorry... :-)


      He who sees clearly, is not even able to either identify or dis-identify
      with anything. There is no separate identity, (and there never was), in
      order to proceed in taking a distance from 'it'. Mind may play, but this
      is only its playful nature. If mind were not Self, then what is it?


      I heard Francis Lucille on Friday night. I asked him about having
      experienced (what do you call it??) freedom, seen the way thought works,
      etc. He said a lot of things, one of them being that I had turned this
      "state" into an object more or less and subsequently became attached to
      it. Thus, the thought that I had lost it, however incorrect. (Greg,
      please clarify if I misunderstood him).


      Yes, I agree. I think you did understand his comment. Francis's
      comments come experience, and from Jean Klein and Sri Atmananda. And my
      experience is the same: All thoughts and states are objects. What
      makes it an object is that it (i) is seen or known, and (ii) it comes
      and goes.


      What is a state really then? Is that all there is, different states of
      being? Is it the same as feelings?


      A state is the way the mind or body seems to be. The difference between
      a state and a feeling is really that states are long, feelings are
      short. They both come and go. In fact, the mind and body themselves
      are nothing more than bundles of thoughts and feelings and sensations.

      When we prefer one state to another, that preference is an attachment
      (it's another feeling too). The attachment is to something that is no
      longer there. What we really are however, our true nature, is not a
      state or a feeling. It is That which is aware of states, thoughts,
      feelings. It is That which is reading these words now. So it cannot be
      seen. It can never be an object, and never was.

      What we truly are, we can never lose; it never goes away. We ARE it!
      We say we "lose" something because it went away. This is why Francis it
      is incorrect that you had "lost" it. Yes, a state or feeling went
      away. But YOU were there all the time.

      Phillip Burton:

      When one is in pain, it's not possible to "face" it. The pain must be
      relieved and then the cause of pain can be faced on another level.
      "Neti, neti" means understanding what I am not. What does it mean that
      I am not the body, not the mind? It means that "body" and "mind" are
      not fixed entities or objects with which one can reasonably identify.
      It is even possible to say "body" and "mind" do not exist. The quotes
      are used to emphasize that talking about them is talking about concepts,
      not about realities. You speak of "my body" and thus separate from the
      body of the cosmos, the body of the universe. Body is form and form is
      appearance. Appearance is illusion, because illusion is something
      grasped that vanishes upon grasping. The only "real" body is the
      ever-changing display of consciousness as a whole. To illustrate what I
      mean ... I will be in attendance at my funeral, as I am Life itself ...
      how could I not be there? There will be birds singing ... that is I.


      Tomas Diaz de Villegas:

      I got another one for the nonduality movie list- just saw it this
      "American Beauty" and, it was beautiful. I give it two thumbs up.
      go out and see it- have fun!


      Yes, it was excellent.

      I also recommend "Breakfast of Champions," with Bruce Willis. It's based
      on the Kurt Vonnegut novel about a car dealer and small-town celebrity
      who suffers a crisis of identity (early in the film he asks himself "Who
      Am I?") and basically goes wacko until he encounters a science fiction
      writer whose novel (in the form of a letter written from God to
      humanity) explains the mystery of the universe, viz., "I put you here as
      a test to see how much you can take."

      It is getting lousy reviews, but I enjoyed the concept of the film. I
      presume Vonnegut's book is far more complex and I plan to read it.


      Honestly, it seems simpler to me just not to be a person if you're not.
      This alleviates all the strain in acting as a person so you can
      celebrate that you're not one. Of course, then there's no strain, but
      there's no celebration either. It's just more direct and simple that
      way :-) Now, in being direct like this, there doesn't seem to be any
      "act" from which to "alleviate others' suffering." Isn't that
      inevitable though? If I am following your perspective - at some point,
      suffering becomes an ungrounded nonreality, based on nothing, and
      therefore the concept of alleviating suffering becomes meaningless.
      This raises the question of whether there is some kind of helping that
      has no intention to help anyone, has no aversion toward hurt, and some
      kind of being with others that doesn't need to be with others. It seems
      to me that ultimately that's where we're going here...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.